Santini 1

Prohibition of Alcohol v. Prohibition of Marijuana

Christian Santini001018-152

HistoryMs. Kirchner

28 November, 2009Word count: 3,459

Santini 2

Abstract

Do the similarities between the prohibitions of alcohol to the prohibition on

marijuana foreshadow the war against marijuana to be another failure? Based on the

history of the prohibition of alcohol beginning in 1920 and its undeniable failure, it is

evident that the prohibition on marijuana will undoubtedly follow the historical path and

lead to a possible costly failure.

The main sources that made me better understand the topic and receive legitimate

facts were court trials, government websites, and scientific results. The Supreme Court

ruling of upholding the Webb-Kenyon Act of 1913 demonstrated the federal

government’s perseverance and the power they had to obtain their goals of the

Prohibition. The Federal Bureau of Investigation provided an accurate record of

information on the amount of arrests related to marijuana possession in a set of years.

This data shows a similar pattern with the prohibition of alcohol in that an increase of

criminals in prisons leads to an increase in spending taxpayer’s money on incarceration

and the criminal justice system. I also used the laws of California to show how their

reforms should serve as a model for the United States to gradually introduce the drug to

society and receive tolerance from the general population.

Both prohibitions share too many similarities and a vast amount of factual

evidence that can explain the further outcomes of the current prohibition on marijuana.

Government officials must begin to look at the large amount of scientific data and the

immense opposition by organizations and come to the conclusion of decriminalizing the

use of marijuana.

Word count: 258

Santini 3

Table of Contents

Title page 1

Abstract 2

Table of Contents 3

Essay 4-15

Works Cited 16-18

Santini 4

The Merriam-Webster definition for the term Prohibition refers to “the forbidding

by law of the manufacture, transportation, and sale of alcoholic liquors except for

medicinal and sacramental purposes”. According to the National Archives, the named

era, Prohibition began “by the pressure of several social groups that led the House of

Representatives to propose the 18th amendment in 1917 to ban the manufacturing, sale,

and transportation of alcohol in the United States of America. By 1918, the amendment

had the sufficient amount of support from the states to enact the amendment” (Kerr). The

many who experienced the prohibition believed that it was an ineffectual strategy.

Despite the failure of the prohibition of alcohol, the U.S. government ignored the

negative reactions and transitioned in creating a new prohibition on marijuana enacted by

the “Marijuana Tax Act of 1937”. The Marijuana Tax Act required a stamp for the sale of

marijuana, which was never distributed by the government, making the sale of marijuana

basically impossible to obtain. The ban on marijuana shows an even stricter stand of the

government compared to that of the prohibition of alcohol, due to the fact that the use of

marijuana is even restricted for sacramental and medicinal uses. Many questions arise

from this historical issue that has been encountered for the past several years. Do the

reforms of prohibition actually correct the problems caused by the drug or do the negative

affects of the prohibition outweigh the positive effects? Are the costs of maintaining

marijuana illegal too high? Do the similarities between the prohibitions of alcohol to the

prohibition on marijuana foresee the war against cannabis to be another failure? What

are the similarities and differences between the prohibition of alcohol and marijuana in

the United States? Based on the attempt of prohibition of alcohol in the 1920’s and its

undeniable failure, it is evident that the prohibition on marijuana will certainly follow the

Santini 5

same steps of the previous prohibition. To explain the similarities that both the

prohibition of alcohol and the prohibition of marijuana beginning in the mid 1930’s in the

U.S. reflect the future failure of the ongoing prohibition of marijuana, this essay will

discuss the social views that led to the establishment of each prohibition, the U.S.

economy funding to enforce the restrictions that are put in place, and the judicial branch’s

decisions towards reforms of prohibition based on the events in history that occurred

before 1998.

Diverse social groups demonstrated great opposition towards the use of alcohol

and marijuana and began to spread their ideals of prohibition, which influenced the

people of the U.S. government to make a move on the substances. In the academic

database SIRS, the “Alcoholism Timeline” presents that in 1673, Reverend Increase

Mather published Wo to Drunkards: Two Sermons Against the Sin of Drunkenness, in

which he condemns the excessive consumption of alcohol in the colonies (Ljungquist and

Shaw). Reverend Increase Mather, a Puritan minister strongly supported the opposition

towards any form of intoxication and influenced his followers of the Puritan church. His

ideals of the suppression of the means for intoxication were carried on for many

centuries. According to Grolier’s New Book of Knowledge, the prohibition ideal began to

emerge in the 1800's,when many Protestants believed that “after slavery, drunkenness

was the nation's greatest evil” (Kerr). The Protestant movement condemned the

consumption of alcohol, and these settlers soon began to realize that their only way of

being able to establish restrictions was to also have a voice in the political movement.

The Protestant involvement in the persuasion for reform against alcohol exemplifies the

diffusion of the idea of prohibition on the drug began to be passed down by generations

Santini 6

in the United States by grandchildren of religious followers who migrated away from

persecution. As the development of the women’s movement began to grow, the Women’s

Christian Temperance Union emerged. This union viewed drinking as “a moral

abomination that demeaned men, threatened women, and destroyed the family” (Faue,

and Nash). The push for prohibition was also supported by the Anti-Saloon League,

which was noted In the Encyclopedia of American History: The Emergence of Modern

America that “the WCTU was extremely successful in popularizing the idea of a national

prohibition amendment, but it was the ASL that bolstered the final drive toward national

Prohibition”. The ideals and concepts of these social groups began to persuade the

members of Congress over time, which finally led to the inaction of a bill against the

consumption of alcohol in the U.S. The increase of the Puritan population and the

influence in the government, the influence of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union

and the Anti-Saloon league all shared the strong opposition towards the consumption of

alcohol and made efforts to get the results of a ban on alcohol across the U.S in which

they were able to attain for a couple of years.

While the people of the United States were witnessing and experiencing the

period of Prohibition on alcohol, a prohibition on marijuana began to establish itself

taking stronger roots than previous opposition toward the drug. The 1856 edition of the

Encyclopedia Britannica, in its lengthy entry on hemp, noted that the herb "produces

inebriation and delirium of decidedly hilarious character, inducing violent laughter,

jumping and dancing" (Hanrahan). The Encyclopedia Britannica’s description of

marijuana, would have undoubtedly altered the perception of marijuana on society due to

its credibility. The source goes on to say that in 1910, Mexican immigrants introduced

Santini 7

“recreational use of "marihuana" to the Southwest. Then in the next following five years

Utah passes the first state anti-marijuana law after a group of Mormons returns to Salt

Lake City with marijuana from Mexico” (Riegelhaupt and Starzyk). Many Mexicans used

marijuana as a cultural thing, just how Americans drink alcohol. The actions taken by the

Utah’s legislators showed how political officials of the era believed in maintaining a

cultural division between Mexican immigrants. The employment of state laws had denied

the acceptance of allowing the recreational use of “Acapulco Gold”, the slang used to

refer to cannabis, which was introduced by the Mexican population that began to emerge

in the U.S. society.

Early influence of prohibition ideals and the publishing of the effects of marijuana

and alcohol on a person impacted society on their view on the drugs. Alcohol condemned

by various denominations, such as Protestantism and Puritanism began to carry out their

theologies since the beginning of the settlement of United States. They were able to get

their way through their ties with political officials. Certain anti-cannabis views held by

government officials due to be being prejudice against the Mexican immigrants had

significant impact on prohibition. Furthermore, the increase of social groups like the

WCTU and the ASL added additional effort in influencing America’s society and led to

the conformity of these prohibition ideals that conflicted with traditional customs. Certain

anti-cannabis views held by government officials due to be being prejudice against the

Mexican immigrants had significant impact on prohibition. In other words, if immigrants

were associated with importing marijuana, many people didn’t want the practice to be

accepted. This prejudice demonstrated ignorance of different cultures and a failure to

accept the way people choose to live their life. This history shows how the laws against

Santini 8

the growing, imported use of cannabis paralleled the laws against alcohol.

The economy of the U.S. during prohibition is also worth of review. The U.S.

economy wasted a vast amount of currency on funding the opposition toward the

corruption caused by the prohibition of alcohol in the early part of the 1900’s. In 1923,

Charles Hanson Towne reported that “evidence of the economic challenges caused by the

prohibition was seen at the Sing Sing prison”. The prison witnessed the highest amount

of prisoners in the 1920’s, specifically a prison population of 1,600. The “noble

experiment”, which was the name given to the prohibition because it was meant to reduce

the amount of criminals in prisons and give a slight economic relief that eventually led to

the contrary result of increasing the amount of prisoners resulting in higher costs in

housing the criminals. The annual budget of the Bureau of Prohibition went from $4.4

million to $13.4 million during the 1920s, while Coast Guard spending on Prohibition

averaged over $13 million per year (FBI). While the plan for prohibition was to improve

the problems caused by alcohol, instead more problems arose when alcohol was illegal.

Congress ignored the exceeding costs and did not act quickly enough to change how law

enforcement should act against moon shiners. The future failure of the 1920’s prohibition

on alcohol was evident in this economic struggle the United States government had in

managing their expenditures.

The same effects on the economy are visible in the prohibition on marijuana. In

carrying out the enforcement for marijuana prohibition, a large budget is necessary, just

like the prohibition of alcohol, which is evident when “taking the 1966 marijuana arrest

and disposition data and applying fiscal 1967-68 budget -figures, Calof arrived at a

"hybrid" estimate of $29,783,418.56 for -the 18,243 adult and juvenile marijuana arrests

Santini 9

and the dispositions of 14,209 adult -felony offenders. This averages out to

approximately $1,630 per arrest, or $2,100 per adult disposition” (Source la, p.114). This

corresponding expense on marijuana prohibition since 1966 is obviously increasing,

which compares to the big budget spent on the prohibition of alcohol. This comparison of

the outstanding costs in enforcing each prohibition should reveal to the government and

to the people that the policies carried out against marijuana will not fix the problem just

like how laws during the “noble experiment” did not aid in the alcohol problem. Since

1983, the Campaign Against Marijuana Planting also known as CAMP has spent more

than “$9 million of federal and state money in an effort to curb California's burgeoning

pot crop, estimated to be worth between $1 billion and $3 billion at wholesale, a year”

(Morganthau). Despite the large amount of taxpayers’ money being spent, there has not

been any success in actually stopping California’s pot crops. The continuation of the

prohibition and campaign against marijuana has led to an estimated $225 million gone to

waste until this year.

Historical records in several sources show that government spending increased

during the prohibition of the 1920’s on alcohol in ensuring that officials enforce the ban,

while on the other hand, the black market flourished in illegal manufacturing of alcohol

and trafficking. The everlasting prohibition of marijuana seems to reflect the same

effects. In order to properly carry out each of the prohibitions, federal organizations were

formed to control the crime that was caused by the prohibitions.

The Volstead Act of 1919 added additional strictness to the existing 18th

amendment in that it clearly defined what “intoxicating liquors” were, which was decided

that 0.5% of alcohol would be the highest percentage that can be sold. The government

Santini 10

officials who voted to accept these laws were not aware of the consequences of an

increase in criminal behavior. During the era of the first prohibition the FBI was already

founded, and they took part in maintaining a stable American society. Carlisle’s work on

“World War I: Eyewitness History” covers main issues during the era of World War I,

stated “Prohibition, although it succeeded in reducing access to alcohol by the poor, led

to a crime wave as smugglers, bootleggers, and speakeasy operators profited from

supplying illegal beer and liquor to those who could afford their prices”. The need for the

consumption of alcohol in the U.S. society has become such a part of a normal life and

culture; citizens drink at a plethora of events, from sports competitions to baby showers.

The description provided by the eyewitness shows that the efforts of the U.S. government

in trying to control illegal consumption were ineffectual even though the FBI had been

founded about a decade before the prohibition. Based on a graph from the Enforcement

of the law [prohibition] “fell to the Department of the Treasury and the Coast Guard was

charged with interdicting the flow of "Demon Rum" before it reached American shores”

(Canney). Despite of adding another establishment in aiding to carry out the prohibition,

smugglers were still able to find a way around and achieve in distributing the contraband.

The countless attempts of the government to enforce the restrictions were more

ineffectual than the predicted results and soon the people began to realize that it was

necessary to follow a different path rather than legal restrictions.

Since the mid 1930’s the prohibition of marijuana has had various organizations

to fight the war against the drug and has led to the increase of arrests for the possession of

cannabis. Based on the statistics from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports in 1993 an

estimated “18.6 million people used marijuana and police arrested 380,689 of them”

Santini 11

(“FBI”). As the organizations try to eradicate marijuana by arresting them, they are still

unable to remove the ones that provide the drug. Instead of focusing on arresting the

dealers that are allowing the people to access the drug, most of the arrests are for small

possessions of marijuana and will gradually affect the U.S. economy by prosecuting these

users. Already eleven states containing one third of the nation's population don't make

arrests for possession of marijuana for personal use: Alaska, Oregon, California,

Nebraska, Colorado, Minnesota, Ohio, Mississippi, North Carolina, New York, and

Maine. These decriminalization laws were enacted during the 1970's and have resulted in

considerable savings. Since “1980 there have been an average of 386,000 marijuana

arrests a year” (“FBI”). The decriminalization by the eleven states exemplifies how these

take into consideration of the failure of the 1920’s prohibition on alcohol and should lead

the example for other states to follow the same steps. The eleven states exemplify the

harmless effects of enacting these laws of decriminalization and can serve as an example

for the federal government by demonstrating that these so-called radical reforms should

be taken into consideration to show that they are able to learn from their mistakes and

prevent the same error of enforcing prohibition, which lead to a worthless and

economically stupid path to take.

The judiciary branch is the sole branch that focuses in enforcing the laws that are

put in place by the Constitution and the federal government. The judiciary branch was a

strong force during the 1920’s prohibition and continues to enforce the ongoing

prohibition of marijuana. As the judiciary branch in the early 1900’s had the power to end

the prohibition on alcohol, which they saw was ineffective, so can the judiciary branch

from today end the prohibition on marijuana. Throughout each prohibition, the various

Santini 12

lawsuits that took place had altered the predicted path of the prohibition.

The prohibition on marijuana continues to witness several cases on changing the

existing legislation and the ones who have the last word in the decision is the judicial

branch. In certain states the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes is accepted by the

state government despite the federal government prohibits any use of marijuana. In result

to these contradictions between the state and federal government, courts are responsible

in reaching a conclusion pertaining to this dispute. On December 10, 1987 a trial between

the United States v. Alister Henderson Simon was held on the matter of the religious use

of marijuana by Rastafarians. The jury decided he was guilty and did not accept his claim

of the religious use of the drug stating that the, “smoking of marijuana, while prevalent

among Rastafarians, might not be a tenet of the religion” (U.S. v. Simon). This decision

made by the United States Court of Appeals demonstrates the strong effort of the U.S.

trying to get rid of the drug even if it used as a sacramental substance, but on the other

hand the use of wine for sacramental uses is acceptable. This case also exemplifies how

the United States is attempting to eradicate the use of the drug even if it means to violate

the freedom of religion. Despite this ruling many will continue the use of the drug

because of its importance and value in their culture and religion.

The Prohibition of the 1920’s left the judicial branch with a big importance in

making sure the laws dealing with the prohibition are being enforced correctly. During

this era, the “Supreme Court upheld the Webb-Kenyon Act of 1913, which permitted dry

states to ban interstate shipments of liquor into their territory from elsewhere, if they

wished. Congress also passed a prohibition law for Alaska and Washington, D.C., and

permitted the people of Puerto Rico to vote on the issue, after which the island went dry”

Santini 13

(Jaycox). The Supreme Court’s power was used to uphold the Webb-Kenyon Act of

1913, which demonstrates the role and strong influence of the federal government in

supporting the state governments to impose greater power of enforcing the prohibition.

Also, it shows how all the branches of the government are working together to extinguish

the use of alcohol. In 1922, the eve of the prohibition, the case of Vigliotti versus

Pennsylvania, Vigliotti was found guilty of selling, during the spring of 1920, spirituous

liquor without a license a few months after the 18th amendment became effective and was

sentenced (Vigliotti v. Pennsylvania, 258 U.S. 403, 1922). Vigliotti’s case predicted the

path of future trials to come dealing with the prohibition in that there would be a zero

tolerance mentality and all those accused will be held guilty. The defendant insist that

two punishments for the same act, one under the National Prohibition Act and the other

under a state law, constitute double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment (United States

v. Lanza). In the case of the United States versus Lanza the Fifth Amendment was put

into effect and allowed the federal government to try Lanza for the same crime again. The

Fifth Amendment included this specific statement towards the topic of double jeopardy to

demonstrate their strong efforts in making that all offenders receive the punishment of a

fine or a sentence in jail to show the public that they are treating this situation seriously to

prevent people from committing the same crime. The prohibition brought a strong wave

of government opposition towards alcohol and in effect led to several cases that clogged

up the prisons for a victimless crime.

The Prohibition of alcohol that was carried out from 1920 to 1933 reflected the

opposite of the expected results. The government realized the increase of economic

spending on housing the vast amounts of criminals, the increased crime rate, the strong

Santini 14

opposition from diverse organizations, and the large amount of federal and local judicial

cases that clogged up courts. Now the prohibition on marijuana is witnessing the same

negative effects and is following the same steps of the first attempt on prohibition. For

example, the similarities between the increase of organized crime in both prohibition time

periods. Also, there was an increase in government economic funding in trying to enforce

both prohibitions. These failures impact the citizens due to the government spending of

taxpayer’s money on law enforcement like the Drug Enforcement Administration on

attempting to eradicate something that is impossible because it has been so intertwined

into the American culture like alcohol was in the 1920s. Clearly, a call for immediate

action must be taken by the local and federal governments to address the subject of

marijuana and to prevent the continued failure that was evident in the “Noble

Experiment”.

We can no longer prohibit the use of marijuana and use it for our advantage. What

if marijuana did indeed become legalized again? The concept of allowing the use of

marijuana can bring an increase in the government economy by taxing the drug like

alcohol. By no longer having to enforce restrictions on the drug the government is able to

cut down on the amount of taxpayers’ money being spent on law enforcement and

housing the people in prisons that commit the crime. With marijuana out of the black

market, the government has the ability to oversee the production of the plant and can

place restrictions on the potency to prevent harm to the people. By allowing the sale of

cannabis in stores, it will reduce the rates of underage consumption by requiring the

person to be 21 or older. Placing a sin tax on the drug like one on tobacco and alcohol

will bring in money to provide for drug rehabilitation programs. From learning and

Santini 15

analyzing the history from the past one should be able to prevent similar situations from

occurring. The analysis of the history of the prohibition of alcohol should come to serve

as an example for the ongoing ban on marijuana, to prevent the situation to get any

worse.

Word count: 3,459

Santini 16

Works Cited

Aldrich, M. Ph.D., "Fiscal Costs of California Marijuana Law Enforcement," Chapter

8, pp. 97-118.

Canney, D. (1999). RUM WAR: THE U.S. COAST GUARD AND PROHIBITION,

SIRS Knowledge Source. Retrieved October 18, 2008, from Knowledge Source

Comprehensive Search Portal http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-

display?id=SMIAMIDADE07805&artno=0000105376&type=ART&shfilter=U&

key=%22coast%20guard%22%20prohibition&title=Rum%20War%3A%20The%

20U%2ES%2E%20Coast%20Guard%20and%20Prohibition&res=Y&ren=Y&go

v=Y&lnk=Y&ic=N.

Carlisle, Rodney P. (2007). Lost Generation in the 1920s: 1919–1927. World War I,

Eyewitness History. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2007. Retrieved October 7,

2008, from American History Online. Facts On File, <http://www.fofweb.com/

activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE52&iPin=EHWWI12&Sin gleRecord=True >.

Faue, E. & Nash,G.. (2003). Prohibition. Encyclopedia of American History: The

Emergence of Modern America, 1900 to 1928, vol. 7. New York: Facts On File,

Inc., 2003.Retrieved November 10, 2008, from American History Online.

Facts On File, <http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?

ItemID=WE52&iPin=EA HVII212&SingleRecord=True>.

Hanrahan, C. & Odle, T.. (2005). Marijuana. In Jacqueline Longe (Ed.), Gale

Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine, Vol. 3(2nd ed., pp. 1288 1292).  

Detroit: Gale. Retrieved October 01, 2008,  from Gale Virtual Reference

Library via Gale: http://find.galegroup.com/ips/start.do?prodId=IP.

Santini 17

Jaycox, F. (2005). The Progressive Era, Eyewitness History. American History

Online. Facts On File. Retrieved November 12, 2008, from American History

Online. Facts On File,<http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=W

E52&I Pin=EHPEEssay09&SingleRecord=True>.

Kerr, K. A. (2008). Prohibition. The New Book of Knowledge®. Retrieved October 1,

2008, from Grolier Online< http://nbk.grolier.com/cgi-bin/article?assetid=a202

4105-h>.

Ljungquist, M. & Shaw, A.. (2008). Alcoholism Timeline, SIRS Knowledge Source.

Retrieved October 12, 2008, from Knowledge Source Comprehensive Search

Portal http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SMIAMIDADE-0-

8220&artno=0000266135&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=&title=Alcoholism%20

Timeline&res=Y&ren=Y&gov=Y&lnk=Y&ic=N.

Riegelhaupt, C. & Starzyk, K.. (2008). Marijuana Legislation Timeline. SIRS

Knowledge Source. Retrieved October 12, 2008, from Knowledge Source

Comprehensive Search Portal http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-

display?id=SMIAMIDADE-0 8220&artno=0000257778&type=ART

&shfilter=U&key=&title=Marijuana%20Legalization%20Timeline&res=Y&ren=

Y&gov=Y&lnk=Y&ic=N.

Thornton, M (1991). Alcohol Prohibition Was a Failure, CATO Institute. Retrieved

October 12, 2008, from CATO Institute http://www.cato.org/pub_displ

ay.php?pub_id=1017&full=1.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1997). Crime in the United States FBI Uniform

Crime Report, Washington, D.C.; U.S. Government Printing Office 213-214.

Santini 18

Drug Enforcement Administration. (2006). The DEA Position On Marijuana.

Washington, D.C.; U.S. Government Printing Office.

United States of America v. Simon. No. 87-1511. United States Court of Appeals,

First Circuit. 25 March 1988.

Vigliotti v. Common Wealth of Pennsylvania No. 530. Supreme Ct. of the US. 10

April 1922.